Transitioning from Organisation to Group through a federated structure that builds legacy, not legend.
Tracking Honeybees' evolution through Tuckman's stages of team development.
A three-tier structure inspired by US federalism: Board → Core → Organisations.
With most leaders wearing two hats (Core + Sales Team), meeting sequence matters. This cycle ensures information flows bottom-up before decisions flow top-down, preventing organisational schizophrenia.
The first Monday Core meeting has no prior Friday directives to report on. This is expected. Cycle 1's Monday Core serves as a kickoff session:
From Cycle 2 onwards, the flywheel has momentum and the full reporting rhythm applies.
Information flows bottom-up, directives flow top-down.
Monday's Core meeting surfaces progress and blockers on existing tasks. The parallel Org meetings then review sales figures team-by-team, with each team explaining their numbers. Over the week, execution continues and data accumulates.
By Friday, Board members have lived with the week's reality. They strategise with full context, debate openly with CoS and COO present as counsel, and reach consensus behind closed doors. Directives are finalised before the weekend.
Come Monday, everyone receives unified directives at Core. The cycle repeats.
Mechanically, all three meetings can run in 3 hours on one day. But the Monday/Friday split exists for processing time, not logistics. Trends emerge over days, not hours. Friday Board sees a week's pattern, not a single snapshot. HYS and RY live with Org issues for 5 days before strategising; same day compresses this to reactive decision making. The weekend also gives CoS and COO time to align on messaging before Monday.
Compression is possible if systems capture data continuously and Board can synthesise on the spot. But decision quality may suffer.
The structure defines clear boundaries between what's centralised (Core mandate) and what's autonomous (Organisation sovereignty). This is the constitutional framework that makes federation work.
Vision, Mission, Core Values, Ethics, Branding, Training & Recruitment Standards ARE THE ONLY items that warrant direct interference from Board or Core. For everything else, there must be autonomy granted and a non-interference mandate.
The Non-Interference Mandate: Neither Organisation leader may directly instruct the other's sales teams. Shyuan must NOT interfere even if he prognosticates failure, if he is obsessed with Ryan's growth. It forces Bees B to come together as an organisation to solve problems. That bonds the team more than any team bonding activity ever will.
That said, non interference does not mean tolerating trespasses against the core mandate, nor denying peer advice. The structure shapes the "How" more than the "What". It channels feedback through director to director conversation rather than direct intervention. This preserves structural integrity while ensuring both directors remain informed and can address issues through their own methods.
The Board meeting also serves as a platform for either director to seek counsel from the other's unique expertise and style. Shyuan's experience and Ryan's fresh perspective become mutual resources. The request comes from the director who owns the problem while the advice remains advisory. Autonomy is preserved because the asking party controls whether and how to implement any suggestion.
This augments the purpose of a Board for what it can be. When one party asks "How would you manage this?", it does not represent a rescinding of authority, but an attempt to learn and expand one's arsenal of people management skills. Also, the asker chooses to ask and in equal measure chooses what they will do with the answer. Meanwhile, the advice giver gets to teach without overstepping. Both directors grow in this format. CoS and COO, present as counsels, absorb context about both organisations' challenges and can then calibrate their support accordingly. The teams below eventually notice their leaders modelling the behaviour of seeking wisdom as a strength, rather than as an admission of inadequacy. That filters down. Team leaders start consulting peers across organisational lines. The whole group learns faster because no one is assuming to have all the answers. The synergy of such a format with Honeybees' strong culture of collaboration and mutual support is self evident. It refines how collaboration is delivered and sought.
Collaboration Remains Core Culture: Non-interference is about ED to team control, not isolation. Team leaders seeking guidance from peers across orgs, teams collaborating on shared challenges, leaders helping each other grow their agents are all encouraged. This is the culture we are proud of. The restriction is top-down control from one ED to another's teams, not organic peer to peer collaboration.
Competitive Sales, Collaborative Support: Success/failure MUST be attributed to each ED. Sales teams compete. Core departments collaborate and serve all Organisations equally.
Evaluated against five benchmarks: Hierarchical Fit, Scalability, Leader Development, Identity Preservation, and Functional Performance.
The US federal government features a top-level Executive branch and empowered Supportive branches that unite states through effective centralised support. States are accorded a liberal degree of autonomy for execution, customisation, experimentation and innovation. States compete healthily and learn from each other organically. The federal government ensures coherence without micromanaging operational intricacies.
Multiple governors (EDs) report to the executive branch (Group Board). This construct scales elegantly. While less pronounced with 2 EDs, the Board dynamics become increasingly meaningful as ED count grows.
This organically separates Organisation powers (through Autonomy) from Board powers (through Consensus), preventing conflicts of interest and delineating Board duties from Org leadership duties.
The American model scaled from 13 states to 50 without structural redesign. This was possible only because Federal Services served all states fairly and without bias. New states integrated into the existing framework seamlessly.
The constitution (Mandate in Honeybees terms) provides stability when integrating new organisations. Non-compromisable mandate: Vision, Mission, Core Values, Ethics, Branding, Training & Recruitment Standards.
The federated structure forces governors (EDs) to develop autonomous decision-making. A natural sandbox for leadership experimentation. Peers on the Board perceive takeaways from each other's successes and failures, while the Support Branch prevents total failure and promotes meaningful risk-taking.
Americans exist with strong national identity coupled with state pride. "We as Americans" persists despite differences in state and political alignment. Federal institutions reinforce unity. Shared values prevent fragmentation. Critically, this identification is organically nurtured from within, not indoctrinated.
Clear limits of powers allow each level to focus on core competencies. The Board handles strategy, accountability, mandate preservation, and directives. The Core delivers directives to Organisations. Organisations interpret and execute autonomously, preserving EDs' personal leadership style while improving through competition.
Interdependence is organic rather than manufactured. States need the federal government; the federal government needs states. This mutual need creates stable federation.
Strong centralised control with provincial implementation of central directives. Efficiency through standardisation and compliance. Unity enforced through structural control rather than organic interdependence. One State: all MUST identify as Chinese.
Structurally designed NOT to develop autonomous leaders. Success measured by compliance and execution of central vision. Provincial leaders learn obedience rather than independent strategic thinking. Innovation occurs only when approved and cascaded from centre.
Creates risk-averse leaders who fear making decisions without clearance. Setup for infighting & ancient politics dating back to the Imperial Court.
Strong central control prevents fragmentation effectively. Everyone must identify primarily with the whole. But unity is achieved through control rather than genuine shared purpose. Risk of identity becoming associated with central personality rather than institution. When central figure changes, identity crisis may emerge.
Overcentralisation has always led to eventual segregation (USSR, Chinese dynastic history) and severely impedes personal development. Centralisation towards a personality is unsustainable. The structure is what can be passed on; the head of the family will inevitably pass on.
This model delivers results but is philosophically incompatible with building a legacy of leaders. It structurally perpetuates the dynamic Honeybees seeks to transcend.
Weak central authority with limited enforcement powers. Strong national sovereignty and independent decision-making. Difficult consensus-building requiring unanimous or supermajority agreement. Perpetual risk of member exit and free-riding.
Nobody will ever first declare and identify as European. Never "made in Europe" or "made in EU". Always "Made in France, Italy, Germany." Shared identity is aspirational rather than actual.
No strong binding mechanism beyond economic convenience. When economic benefits diminish, members exit (Brexit). Honeybees identity would erode into "Bees A culture" and "Bees B culture" rather than unified Honeybees culture.
Full independence is the easiest path. "From today onwards, Wo Bu Guan Ni Le." But also the laziest. It risks erosion of Honeybees culture as an asset. Full-on independence is counter-culture to collaboration.
Interdependence over Independence. Federation over Fragmentation.
This restructuring commits Honeybees to building something that outlives its founders.
This choice determines whether Honeybees needs a successor or not. Are we in the business of building business, or in the business of building business leaders?
If people remember the brand through time and many forms, it's a legacy. If they remember just the person(s) and a time, it's a legend. One is more scalable.
The more we scale, the more valuable careful autonomy becomes. Founder of a legacy, not just a legendary founder.
This restructuring is more behavioural than structural. Structure can only deliver insofar as the parties appreciate, respect and comply with its design. The federated structure requires behavioural change to succeed.
Strategic redeployment of leaders to capitalise on core competencies.
Executive Director, Bees B
Vacates CoS to focus on ED duties. Full autonomy over Bees B sales strategy. Board member with equal voice on Group matters.
Chief of Staff + Veto Member
Oversight of Training, Recruitment, Communications Director. Strategic counsel to Board. Veto Member for tie-breaking.
Communications Director
Oversight of Events and Branding functions. Reports to CoS. Responsible for Honeybees identity coherence.
Apex Team Leader
Assumes leadership of Apex sales team. Reports to respective Organisation ED. Internal promotion reinforces meritocracy.
Strategic & Analytical Counsel
No longer oversees centralised sales. Focus on operations analytics, strategic planning. 2nd strategic counsel to Board alongside CoS.
Under Review
Assess if functions can be absorbed by COO's enhanced role. Decision by March 2026 after formal assessment.
Structure as forcing mechanism for behavioural change.
Discovered himself, cannot see other way as the way, cannot scale. If he overcomes this, Honeybees becomes a legacy. If not, it ends like all the others.
Physical Impossibility of Control: Cannot simultaneously run Bees A and micromanage Bees B. Time and attention are finite. Must choose: succeed in one or fail in both.
Separated Accountability: When Bees B fails, it's unambiguously Ryan's failure. When Bees B succeeds with a different approach, it validates diversity of methods. It forces confrontation with the reality that "different" ≠ "wrong".
Role Redefinition: From "CEO who controls everything" to "Group CEO who enables everything." From "smartest person giving orders" to "strategic counsel providing guidance." From Regent to Subjects → Helper to Seekers.
This does not mean Shyuan can never help RY, nor that RY's org can never seek Shyuan for help. The direction of influence is permissible from seeker to helper, not Regent to Subjects.
If this limitation is overcome, others can discover themselves fearlessly, and Honeybees becomes a legacy. If not, Honeybees ends like all the others in the industry: 1 to 2 key personalities. After they pass on, they still haven't passed on.
Can never discover himself and his style, cannot scale. If HYS is gone tomorrow, will he fear his own judgement? He has never made his OWN decision ever.
For all the security and comfort that adherence without thinking brings, this prevents true fearlessness. HYS is fearless because he has failed big and failed often enough. RY might know that and fear that, and would never allow himself to go through it, taking utter solace in just following HYS's lead.
If HYS is gone tomorrow, will RY fear his own judgement and decisions? He has never made his OWN judgement and decision. It's an eventual lesson to learn. Better to learn it and fail while the mentors (CN, HYS) are still around.
Decision-Making Autonomy: For first 2 quarters, must make calls without checking with Shyuan. His 3 teams' results are unambiguously his responsibility. Cannot hide behind "I was just following instructions."
Leadership Identity Development: Must answer: "What's my philosophy vs. Boss?" Must develop distinct coaching style for his team leaders. Must build organisational culture that reflects his values, not borrowed ones.
Peer Relationship with Shyuan: From subordinate to peer on Group Board. Must hold his ground in board discussions. Must disagree constructively when necessary.
The structure provides safety to fail while mentors are present. The test is the courage to try his own approach and learn from both successes and failures.
Most organisations develop leaders through training programmes, coaching, and stretch assignments. This structure takes a different approach: architecting an environment where growth is inevitable. Ryan must lead because there's no one else to do it. Shyuan must delegate because he physically cannot manage both organisations. Both must collaborate because federal services require it. Neither can dominate because the structure prevents it. If there are any stretch assignments, this restructuring should be taken as the first.
The structure forces behavioural changes that would otherwise take years of coaching.
Start with training wheels, remove gradually as behavioural change demonstrates success.
Weekly cycle runs as designed. Everything is new: consensus building between EDs, strategic brainstorming as peers, CN and KC as counsel, non-interference across orgs. Old habits will surface. Address them openly.
The weekly cycle becomes second nature. Board dialogue matures. Disagreements are productive. Consensus is genuine. Both EDs trust each other's judgement even when they would choose differently.
The machine runs. Core and Org cycles continue. Board scales with additional EDs as organisations grow. Each ED leads with a distinct style, unified by Honeybees identity. The structure becomes habit.
The federal structure is designed to outlast any individual. Planning for role transitions ensures continuity.
CN (Crystal) and KC (Kenneth Chng) currently serve as CoS and COO respectively. As the organisation scales and new EDs emerge, both are likely candidates for ED roles themselves, vacating their current positions.
This is a feature of the structure: leaders develop through Core roles before taking on Organisation leadership. The federal model creates a natural pipeline.
Currently Executive Assistant, now taking on Communications Director. This trajectory positions her as the natural successor to CoS. As a non-Financial Advisor, the insurance industry's promotion driven role vacancies that affect sales leaders do not apply. She provides stability in the CoS pipeline.
The COO role requires hands on industry experience in insurance sales, alongside strategic and analytical capability. With multiple capable leaders across the organisation, this selection falls to the Board. Planning ahead for leadership selection is an ongoing Board responsibility, not a fixed succession line.
The virtue of this structure is that it positions the Board as an entity whose core functions include succession planning and leadership identification. This formalises a dedicated instrument for continuity. When CN or KC move on to lead their own organisations, the system has already developed their replacements through the same pipeline they came through.